Related

It’s a story as old as Aristophanes’ Lysistrata, the trope of a gender reversal that puts “women on top,” but in a new book that’s getting lots of attention, a journalist is trying to prove that this fiction has become a reality. In The End of Men: And the Rise of Women, Hanna Rosin argues that changes in the world economy have dramatically shifted gender roles. Women have adapted more skillfully to the new socioeconomic landscape by doggedly pursuing self-improvement opportunities, rebranding as the economy requires it, and above all possessing the kind of 21st century work attributes — such as strong communication skills, collaborative leadership and flexibility — that are nudging out the brawny, stuck-in-amber guys. Rock steadiness, long a cherished masculine trait, is about as useful in our fleet-footed economy as a flint arrowhead. Life favors the adapters, and it turns out they’re more likely to be women.

Rosin is a gifted storyteller with a talent for ferreting out volumes of illustrative data, and she paints a compelling picture of the ways women are ascendant: women comprise the majority of undergraduate and graduate students on campuses nationwide and are outstripping men for professional degrees; newly employed single women are actually making more money than single men; women seem to have more ambition and a better ability to plan for the future. Moreover, as women gain more financial and cultural power, rates of teen pregnancy, violence and other bad outcomes have dropped. (There may be too much of a good thing: alarmingly, Rosin points to evidence that women may themselves become more violent toward men as they assume the cultural profile of traditional manhood.)

She’s even sanguine about college hookup culture, claiming that young women are pretty happy with the crude status quo; they don’t want to make any commitments that would jeopardize their career prospects and are willing to forgo what one forlorn undergraduate described as “someone to take me for a frozen yogurt” to avoid being trapped by an early marriage. We ourselves aren’t so sure about this point since, from our perspective, the decline of college dating (which hasn’t led automatically to marriage since the 1950s, by the way) denies both young women and men an opportunity to practice relationship skills they’ll need in order to find long-term partners later. And it’s hard to imagine why anyone tolerates the strikingly retro imbalance of sexual satisfaction (to wit: ability to reach orgasm) that accompanies casual hookup culture.

But while The End of Men captures a profound change in our cultural zeitgeist, one still has to wonder: Why are the relations between men and women still portrayed as a zero-sum game? Why do we need to establish who is winning and losing the war? So much of the coverage of gender issues — indeed the book’s cover title itself — pits women and men against one another. In this way, Rosin, who mainly eschews biological explanations for gender differences, still cleaves to a binary characterization of men and women: when one is up, the other must be down. But history suggests that society is better served, and not only economically, when we see men and women engaged in cooperation rather than pitched battle.

When we see one sex as “on top,” it makes it harder to recognize the downsides. American women are clearly having their “moment,” but, as Rosin notes, their higher powers have resulted in bigger anxieties and more unhappiness than 40 years ago. That’s a bitter pill for feminism. Rosin attributes the problem to women’s inability to cede authority and delegate household responsibilities to their partners, but that explanation assumes they even have partners. We know that many women are single mothers, in precarious financial straits trying to keep their families afloat without a glimpse of any kind of man in the picture. They have achieved a new sense of autonomy, Rosin notes, that has undoubtedly contributed to declining levels of sexual violence. But they’re hardly the fierce amazons we’d like to imagine.

Even the relatively equal and reportedly strong marriages of the educated class — the stable unions where financial and family responsibilities are traded off over the course of a marriage — show some chinks: experts put estimates of sexless marriages as high as 15% to 20%.

There is something else inescapable with this kind of dichotomy: if it is O.K. for women to be seen as superior in some regards, it’s also O.K. for men to be seen as superior in others. That’s not an argument about how women and men are “meant” to be, innately or in some ultimate, unchanging sense. But surely we can be honest with ourselves about what we see in front of us at a given moment in time, whether we are talking about rates of murder or rates of admission to graduate engineering programs. Former Harvard president Larry Summers was excoriated for his hypotheses about women and science and mathematics (mainly by people who had not carefully read his remarks), but one wonders if Summers had said something positive about women rather than men whether his remarks would have been noted at all. A world in which men and women are seen in opposition means that whenever we say a nice thing about one gender, we must be saying something bad about the other. But that is not the sort of world that helps us address complex problems, and it’s not the sort of world most of us would want to inhabit.

Erika Christakis, M.P.H, M.Ed., is an early childhood educator at the Yale Child Study Center. Nicholas A. Christakis, M.D., Ph.D., is the co-director of the Institute of Network Science at Yale University. The views expressed are solely their own.

I had nothing else to read and came on this article. My two cents? Out here in the west women appreciate men and men appreciate women. Good enough for me. I pray for the castrated nutless wonders who live on the east coast and other fruity bastions of no-common-sense like California. If you sorry guys git tired of angry women thayr are still places in the world tigo. Personally, I don't care what women en men in general think ... I'll continue to git-er done... carry on.

"In recorded history, every society has destroyed men. Ironically, the patriarchy is a system wherein women are coddled through the cold blooded disposal of men. The Expendables ring any bells here?"

-Every society destroyed men? What does that even mean? Men destroy men; men in charge of socities attack/wage war with other societies with men in charge and they all destroy each other. What's your point? And are you using a fictional movie 'the expendables' to some how, back up your point?

"REAL equality will occur the moment women become disposable...and that's something men should learn from feminism...that is how to treat women EQUALLY...until they scream UNCLE that is....because unlike hate-full Hanna and her twisted sisters no man I know is chortling about the End of Women."

-women are treated as disposable, even biologically. When women have children, they carry the burden of growing the child for 9 months. The man get to chillax the whole time, and can even leave if he get's bored. The female is stuck with the kid.

"And every society that has inclined has done so thanks to male courage, male creativity and male reasoning. There are simply no societies of significance that have risen with women in charge. THIS one is collapsing rapidly thanks to the tender affections of the hot, fast, and loose feminist bigots."

-First of all, Eygpt was powerful and had Cleopatra as a ruler. There would be more socities with powerful female rulers but women were not granted rights in almost all cultures, mostly because they're phsyically smaller than men on average, and accepted men being in charge.

Our society is rapidly collapsing because the house of cards, good ol' boy system is America can no longer sustain itself.

I'm sorry but your limited experience in life/lack of higher education, has clearly made you into a chauvinist. What would your mother say? Shame on you.

It's about time we as woman are heard and not seen. Is it the end for me no but maybe time take a back seat and let the woman run the world. If we continue to have more woman step up maybe or children will have better role models to follow and then they will see that they can be more then just want the maginze portary them to to. It has come time for womanto be heard and not just take a back sit to the men. Stand up for what we want and not jus tell the men what we feel but strive for it through our own voice.

I'm going to point out that, while women do make the bulk of the population across college campuses, there is still a gap between men and women in the maths and sciences. Women like the humanities, rather than physics and engineering, the subjects that happen to be the highest paying. My (female) cousin was talking to me about how she was the only woman in her engineering classes. I think it's a bit too early to be discussing women and men in terms of feminine superiority (never mind whether it's right or wrong)

If we look at the amount of money spent in bringing opportunities for females to "even the playing field" against the more than apparent neglect given to male children and youths, one can see that this has been a good thing taken too far. In the 1990's Carol Gilligan announced that American girls were in a crisis of going nowhere.

Mary Pipher wrote in "Reviving Ophelia": "Something dramatic happens to girls in early adolescence. Just as planes and ships disappear mysteriously into the Bermuda Triangle, so do the selves of girls go down in droves. They crash and burn." Thus began the war on boys. But Gilligan and Pipher were not alone as a veritable industry of writers and educators rose to address the perceived wrong. So how this war on boys, and men in general took form??? Let's face it... "Boys are resented, being seen both as the unfairly privileged gender and as obstacles on the path to gender justice for girls. There is an understandable dialectic: the more girls are portrayed as diminished, the more boys are regarded as needing to be taken down a notch and reduced in importance. This perspective on boys and girls is promoted in schools of education, and many a teacher now feels that girls need and deserve special indemnifying consideration. So in the court of the classroom, we can see that many teachers already have a mindset on the matter since their graduation.

I would recommend the book discussed here http://www.nytimes.com/books/f... to anyone considering that women are superior to men. They've just had a great deal more help for a substantially long time.

Men still make more money than women do, and still occupy virtually all of the position in society that dictate how things are run, and this is with affirmative action and many decades of anti-discrimination laws that have not only equalized the playing field for women, but in many cases have given them legally built-in advantages over men, and they still are behind men, even with said advantages.

Logically it is the children that lose out in all of this and you will notice that they are barely mentioned. Back in the '60's a reporter visited a hippie commune and ended his report on what he saw with the comment: "a culture that doesn't put its children first has no future". The same statement applies here for different reasons.

Back in the '60's I noticed that the increased divorce rate was forcing women to focus on a career since they could no longer assume they and their children would have a husband around to support them. The catch was that the more they focused on work, the less attention they gave to their husbands and the less likely they were to keep them. The penalty men paid for divorce also dropped as alimony was phased out since women were expected to work.

Men are, of course, unnecessary if there is no need to raise children but is that where we are going?

I disagree with the hypothesis of Rosin's book but I think there has been an equalization of the sexes in the last 40 years. Women have become less feminine, less "girly" if you will, and men have become less macho. But as far as "the end of men?" The title seems designed to attract attention and drive book sales. I think it's a phony concept. I wouldn't be surprised if the working title had been something different and the publisher changed it before it went to print.

I appreciate that women (western) have overcome the 'stay home' position they were placed into by a violent society. And unfortunately it seems that many young women (girls) are trying harder than ever to gain power based on their appearance.. this will inevitably force them back into the less respected category of business.. sorry girls;)

This article is wishful thinking writ large. Men are not in decline. It's more that women are gaining more equal rights.

This notion is shown by the fact that business and politics is dominated by men. The armed forces are dominated by men. Even the Church, synagogues, and mosques are dominated by men. Those four industries - business, politics, the military, and religious institutions - command both domestic and international influence. All are dominated by men.

Where do women fit into the equation? They command more influence in Education and Fashion. Those industries hardly command influence beyond the classroom and the runway.

So, is it really the end of men? In the short-run (through the year 2025), not by a long shot. Men of the 'baby boomer generation' (born from 1946-1959) have solidified their positions of power.

In the medium run (through the year 2035)? That would encompass all men born from 1960-1970. That era will surely be still dominated, as the baby boomers hand over power to those with whom they have worked. More likely than not, that hand-over will be to the younger men.

In the long-run (through the year 2045)? That would encompass all men born from 1970-1980. In that era, there will surely be a greater chance of women gaining in higher positions of power. More of them will be aging in a time when women have had more equal rights, and old notions of 'male chauvinism' are but a memory of their mothers (and even grandmothers). But, will that time be the definitive End of Men? It will be more equal, but men should not be counted out.

Through the year 2055 and beyond? That would encompass all men born after 1980. Currently, men born in 1980 would be almost 33 years old, and assuming lower positions of power. At this point, there's no reason to believe that those same men would not assume higher positions in due time.

Regarding men born after 1990, it's much harder to know. They have only just starting graduating from college/university. It will take time to see how they adjust to the Real World.

One additional comment is that men born after 1990 will have been surrounded by technology their ENTIRE lives (i.e. Internet, smartphones, video games, etc.). As a former teacher, that has definitely affected their ability to engage in social interaction. As a whole, they are more emotional, and less likely to take charge when needed. The 'rock steadiness' is not as present as in years past. It will be in that generation when men may see their dominance decline; it will be interesting to see whether, 'they have it in them.'

Men and women are different on so many levels. One gender is not better than the other. Yes sexism is predominant in our society, however it is not geared towards men or women, but both genders equally.

Once licking beavers became fashionable, it was all downhill from there. A woman's ONLY reason for existence is to produce male heirs. Otherwise, they are just servants. As they are NOT capable of rational, coherent thought, there is NO place for them in the workforce. VOTE??? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND????? Our society was destroyed within one generation of THAT travesty. Get BACK in the kitchen, where you belong, and YES, that dress makes you look fat, because you ARE.

All of the advantages she's giving women over men are also the advantages the young have over the old in the work place. It's all about your mindset and motivation. It doesn't matter who you are, but if you lack these two basic things, you're destined for failure. Right now professional women are entering the workplace with better mindsets and more motivation. If female superiority does in fact come to pass, the following generations of men will have better mindsets and better motivation than the previous (barring women don't instate sexist laws like men have done in the past to prevent the competition) leading to a competitive sharing of the "power".

Men shouldn't be worried or scared. They need to put on their big girl panties and get the job done; then they'll have nothing to worry about. This is what's true regardless of your gender and/or age. Chivalry isn't dead, but women are your equal. Get used to it and get the job done.

As long as there are cockroaches to kill, water cooler bottles to change, garbage bins to take out or wars to be fought, women will keep us men (you know, the ones who destroy and build things again, who invent and innovate) around.

Men will still go on, People live in a world of illusion. It's all what the media says and what they say is that the owners of the media wants them to say. I can't tell you how many women got rich writing about how evil men are and presenting themselves as victims.

Rosin claims that "women comprise the majority of undergraduate and graduate students on campuses nationwide."

I'll wait to see the citations of the data in her book, but there are published numbers by the U.S. Department of Education (http://ed.gov/) for traditional college-age students (ages 18-24), and those show that men still slightly outnumber women (51%-49%) on college campuses, and they do so especially on traditional, residential 4-year college and university campuses.

So it's almost certain that Rosin is using a much broader definition of 'students' and 'campus' in order to come to this conclusion.

It's certainly a good thing to have non-traditional students of all ages on campus, and it might also be a good thing to extend the notion of college to include community colleges, for-profit schools, and other places of post-high school education.

But to simply lump all of these uncommon classes of student and college together in order to reach this conclusion has the whiff of misdirection about it.

Women are very powerful and self sufficient, but this rationale doesn't factor in Men. If you've ever seen a guy snap his neck checking out a pretty girl then you know that there will always be Men. This is like saying flowers are useless, so lets get rid of them. Women give birth to both women and men, and women adore their kids equally. Plus guys are hilarious, goofy, annoying, fun, frustrating; life would suck without them.

The observations made by Rosin should hardly be surprising. Women are handed every opportunity and resource our society has to offer. I don't say this as a bitter resentment, but a factual statement. From elementary school on up to college (even beyond), women are handed everything they need to succeed and receive council, assistance, and support through the process.

Boys, on the other hand, are told to be more like girls ("Be quiet." "Sit still." "Pay attention.") and receive virtually no guidance or support. Ever. Furthermore, they're living in a world that is designed to accommodate women because of the belief that our society has thrived at the detriment of women. So boys grow up in a world designed for girls to succeed, receive no assistance, or even guidance; and then have their worth as human beings measured in their levels of success.

This is the effect of an equal rights movement transforming into a special interest group that now thrives on mis-information and vehemently demonizes any group that doesn't follow their beliefs. Feminism, which (some would say arguably) started with good intentions, now pushes females towards an ideal goal and burns up every resource necessary and tramples on anything in it's path. The problem is that this ideal goal is unrealistic and unattainable.

Then, after all is said and done, feminist authors want to kick back and profit off of things like "The End of Men." As if they're watching their former oppressors go down in flames as they rise above and achieve goals they were absolutely denied. Is any of this even surprising? I can't be the only one who sees the chain of cause and effect here.

By virtue of the unfair and undeserved status men hold we have been given the opportunity to guide world events and have managed to f_ _ _ it up all over the place; we don't have to look any further than to "democratic libya" for the most recent egregious example. Goons of the most misogynistic culture and faith on earth murdered four Americans at its' consulate over their offense at a movie demeaning the Prophet. It's time for men to step aside; and particularly in the middle east so this type of thing can end. Wake up!

I find it funny in a sad way that men get up in arms about a reversal having women in control when it has been they who have had control all this time. Now pouting like 2 year olds asked to share such !

The US is +50% women and yet Congress does not reflect that .

"But history suggests that society is better served, and not only

economically, when we see men and women engaged in cooperation rather

than pitched battle."

When did the above exist where men did not rule ? Who's definition of cooperation ? Bare foot and pregnant is not cooperation but dominance. Something right wing mentality is trying foolishly to re install by having men making decisions for women about their own bodies and lives.While I don't see women taking over the world .

The role of men isn't going to be what it has been in the past . It can not be in a progressive forward thinking moving world. It is that change that has men questioning their positions and self definitions. It scares them , but losing power always has for any person(s) who has welded it over others.ask any dictator.

Computer's can't keep getting better forever without eventually replacing all meaningful human labor. Computers are indeed getting better all the time, and will eventually completely automate every conceivable job type.

It's already happening. We have 8 billion on the planet, and only about 1.2 billion 'jobs' providing everything those 8 billion need. We have reached peak jobs, and total employment is only going to go down from here.

The pushiness of feminists knows no bounds eh? It's actually embarrassing to see their overconfidence reach this stage but not surprising considering how much pampering and false kudos women have received over the last 3 or 4 decades. An obvious example would be the olympics where a complete false world has been created for them in which they're treated as "world champions" when they're not. It's not surprising that there are now delusional women out there who believe they're just too good.

This article is based on a paucity of facts - I have worked in HW tech for a long time including govt labs, aerospace and large commercial companies and I can count the number of female HW engineers or physicists I have worked with on one hand.

Let's also not forget who's doing all the trade work. Despite popular opinion, most skilled trades pay as much or more than many college degrees and often those trades lead to very successful businesses. On the other hand, nearly all jobs requiring a college degree will face outsourcing pressure in the future and pay will almost certainly decline.

For this author it seems that it's much easier to sell a book with an overly dramatic title than actually writing something meaningful.

It is true that “Rosin is a gifted storyteller.” The danger of some of her fiction is that it encourages those who say we now live in a gender blind society. Some say women are doing fine, it is boys who need help, so we can abandon efforts to help women succeed.

Looking at some key data from my recent book Upside Down: The Paradoxes of Gender in the Twenty-first Century (www.upsidedownbook.NET), shows that that since the dawn of the new century women’s progress has stalled. Women’s median income as percentage of men’s? Flat The pay gap between men and women with four-year degrees? Increased. Women’s percentage of directors of large corporations and of partners in large law firms? Flat. The extent of occupational gender segregation in various professions dominated by one gender? Unchanged. Women’s representation in state legislatures? Flat. Women’s representation in statewide elective offices and as mayors of large and medium sized cities? Down.

Are women more adaptable than men? Perhaps, but as the subordinate gender in a patriarchal world, of course they have to be to make any progress at all. I agree with the Christakis’ doubts about Rosin’s claim that women’s progress is reflected in hook up culture. Even a cursory look at popular culture strongly suggests that men still regard women as sex objects and that young women still regard sex primarily as a vehicle to please men.

A wealth of data shows that women in developed nations are less happy than they were forty years ago, both absolutely and compared to men. We should be committed to change that.

@Lee Gunn I fail to see how women giving birth makes them biologically disposable. And men don't chillax the whole time, most work hard to support their families. Plus, if a woman doesn't want the child, she can have an abortion even if the man wants the child. If the man does not want the child, she can keep the child and force him to pay child support and/or seek welfare from the state.

Most women were not in charge because they probably did not want to be in charge and didn't have the motivation to rise to the top - which was quite difficult in the ancient world. And most men were not at the top. They were at the bottom digging ditches, lifting heavy stones and fighting wars.

Yes, men destroyed men; in fact, men destroyed more men than women. And of course, there were many female tyrants as well.

I'm sorry, but your limited experience in life and your faulty education, consisting of women's studies, has clearly made you a misandrist and a sexist. What would your father say? Shame on you.

@Yanda State What a sexist thing to say. What makes you think that women will do a better job of running the world? History shows that there were plenty of female tyrants in the past. And how do women make better role models? By having children they can't support and expecting the taxpayers to support their abortions and promiscuity? Women have been back-seat drivers for quite some time and have told the men they wanted a welfare state and by golly, the men have given it to them. Let's see what the future will hold for children raised by single mothers in poverty and supported by the state.

I'm one of those 1990 guys. I've just started college. It's difficult for me to actually 'feel' and 'see' the gender gap because it doesn't truely exist around me. Women out number me five to one in a couple of classes.

I haven't had the privledge of dominating anyone professionally. Honestly, I'm not confident in my future career I might have.

It's also fascinating to me that so many otherwise intelligent, educated, and well intentioned males care at all about whether "women's progress has stalled" in an age of rampant reverse-sexist gender bigotry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

What you don't seem willing to acknowledge is that sexual power (which the 'oppressed' sex 'owns') is a huge source of superior power in it's own right. Women still regard men as status objects (because very few women and that includes Hanna Rosin have a SOLID hold on status) and young (COSMO) women still regard sex primarily as a weapon to rape status covertly from men. As far as female happiness goes, one certainly might question what a bigoted and utterly false worldview (eg. 'gender' feminism) might have to do with female (and male) misery...because women (and men) are still primarily biological creatures...no matter how much social constructionist nonsense that the evil witches in Women's Studies concoct to show otherwise.

You're quoting feminist shibboleths chapter and verse. How about looking at some other statistics, such as high school drop out rates, college drop out rates, incarceration rates, false incarceration rates, suicide rates, occupational death rates, victims of violence rates, victims of rape rates (when incarceration is counted), homelessness rates, amount of federal funding for medical care, amount of medical care received, and deaths from virtually every known malady in the universe? Which gender do you think comes out on the short end there? Hint: It's most certainly NOT women.

Yet virtually every public policy presumes the OPPOSITE of the above. And which gender makes up the majority of the electorate? Women.

But let's be absurd and whine about the dubious fact that "occupational gender segregation in various professions dominated by one gender" are unchanged. Because in the face of death rates, incarceration rates, rape rates, and victimization rates, that's what matters.

1) Think about where you are attending college. Did it used to be an all-girls college, or have they let in more women over time? Are the classes you're taking more oriented towards women? That could account for the 5:1 girls-guys ratio.

2) I'm glad the gender gap does not exist as of yet. It's an indication that guys and girls are treated equally by the professors and the administration. I hope it stays like that for you.

In the real world, you will not be so lucky, as women are more likely to cut other women some slack. I have experienced this, as has my father (who's worked in business for 30+ years).

3) Of course you haven't dominated anyone professionally - you're still a student! Just so you're not misinformed, "dominance" is not attained by acting arrogant over everyone; I apologize if I gave that impression. Dominance is attained by having greater patience, knowledge, and confidence in your side. People will want to be led (a.k.a. 'dominated') by someone exhibiting those attributes.

4) I can completely understand why you're unsure of your future career. Not many guys and girls in college are sure.

It's an uncertain world that's ever-changing. The best advice I can give you is to find a field that truly makes you happy. If you're able to do that, you'll never feel like you're working a day in your life.

Regarding gender feminism, I’m not a gender feminist either, and I agree that feminism has not been well served by those who deny biology. But regarding unhappiness, its causes are well explained by the economic analysis in this excellent study: www.nber.org/papers/w14969

As to why “intelligent, educated, and well intentioned males care at all about whether ‘women's progress has stalled,’” it’s to some degree self-interest. To make the world a better place, we need all the talent we can get. With the leadership ranks so devoid of women, we’re clearly wasting the talents of half of humanity. I agree with the Chritakis that gender conflicts are not a zero sum game. There are solutions that benefit us all.

I'm having trouble understanding how, in your war against feminism, it helps to start your argument by acknowledging that men’s worst enemy is other men. Put another way, you seem to be arguing – referring to various measures of harm - that men have made a terrible mess of things.

Of your list of statistics unfriendly to males, I note that men are the undisputed kings of the Darwin awards, unintentionally offing

themselves in all sorts of ways, and at rates leaving women in the dust. Men also seem quite keen to kill each other, or women, with malice aforethought, at a rate nine or ten times higher than women do. And, I completely agree that it is a crime against humanity that male on male rape is not infrequent in prisons – run almost entirely by men.

The statistics I cited about power in society are from a male perspective – one viewing societal priorities through the lens of who has power. Much of feminist theory rejects adopting that approach as a process. So, I don’t accept your framing my argument as feminist. Relying in part on game theory, my book is critical of the lack of pragmatism in modern feminism. Women are a majority of the electorate, but how things are is a product of who holds power – both economic and political.

If women had more power, the evidence suggests (not proves),

that society would allocate more resources towards human services of all kinds. For example, several studies show that female legislators place greater priority on human services addressing many of the items on your list. And if some of the recommendations made by me and others regarding day care and part time work were adopted, even more women trained in care giving would be available to help men suffering from the various afflictions you describe.

You seem to be saying that the problems men have created are so dire that we can’t afford to allocate any resources towards putting anyone else in charge. But the fact that men’s death rates are too high does not mean that we should abandon all other public policy objectives. As I observe in my book, attainment of some critical mass of women leaders does not guarantee that those women will abandon patriarchal values that devalue life, health and happiness. But while trying to sort out why so many men are homicidal losers, it might be good bet to spend some effort changing the guard.

Interesting study on happiness. I'll have to dig into that more before commenting. Glad you aren't a gender bigot but hope you will transform your use of the discredited 'gender'-for-sex language so that your objectivity is more obvious next time.

For Western men to care about women's progress given how the officially sponsored Hate Movement has destroyed boys, demeaned men, and murdered masculinity is utterly absurd to me. While sex and gender conflicts need not be a zero sum game, gender feminism sure is. Before we can talk about solutions we need to restore free speech, condemn feminist bigotry and toss feminist goons from positions of power.

Belisarius, I guess I forgot about the violent social unrest in New Zealand, Costa Rica, Holland, Iceland, Norway, Sweeden, Denmark, Finland, France and all the other countries with more robust human services.

Tracheal, I’m sure you don’t want to do anything to bolster Ms. Rosin’s arguments, but you are lending credence to her assertion that men are inferior communicators as compared to women. You don’t bring people over to your side of by insulting them. Your false assumptions about why I hold the views I do are a product of your hatred. I can assure that writing a book about feminism is not helpful to one’s

sex life in the singles scene, something I was quite aware of soon after I started the project eleven years ago. (I’m happily married.) But since you opened the door to speculation, let me guess that you are quite bitter about your not being a “high status” male, or much of ladies man (especially given the degrading view you have of women), and you’ve compensated by looking for online conversations where you can pontificate about your rape-centric view of natural selection.

We do that for sex from women...who 'own' the 'assets' which rule the world covertly (remember DSK). Since women prefer to offer sex to the highest status men, men tend to risk insanely to get a snort of that most addictive form of crack. Some men win (and have huge harems) while most men lose (or just die) and have no one.

That said, the most dangerous kind of man in the world today is the white knight defender of feminist bigots. These men, too, are looking for sex from women, but they believe that by destroying their own sex for female bigots they can get sex directly without having to risk the deadly dog fights that other men go through. However, what they don't understand is that, feminist nonsense aside, women are biological creatures who prefer to 'love' male beasts rather than metrosexual (read feminist or feminist friendly) nice guys.